Karpel Tunnel wrote:1) the authority asked for feedback and you are obviously coping with the authority figure

I generally follow rules regardless if they exist or not so the main problem I have with authority is having others attack me but not being able to defend myself because of the rules.

For example, on another forum I was debating a guy who made remarks with disparaging implications, which I quoted and summed as follows:

Quoted text = "You're stupid"

Quoted text = "You're stupid"

Quoted text = "You're stupid"

So a mod gave me points over it. I complained and admin reversed the points, but it just goes to show who was in the crosshairs. I was merely pointing out that someone else implied I was stupid, but because my post contained the word "stupid", I got points from a trigger-happy mod who obviously didn't like me. And as far as I know, the other guy, who actually made insulting remarks, got no points.

It's similar to someone who committed a property crime against me, but I can't do anything about it because I can't prove it to the cops when I know good n well who did it and if I take any action, then I'll be in trouble. Authority protects the criminals who've found ways around the authority or who have become friends with the authority.

2) he wasted time to write that rather than posting in a topic he found interesting? It makes no sense.

He's not here for discussion but to get kicks from throwing mud, so it makes sense in that light.

Serendipper wrote:I generally follow rules regardless if they exist or not so the main problem I have with authority is having others attack me but not being able to defend myself because of the rules.

For years I followed rules unless someone broke them in my direction. Then the bile could flow. Though sometimes I would get really cold and just list their violations and fallacies. quote, then formal name of fallacy. Quote, then formal name of fallacy. That annoyed to no end precisely one poster and was within the rules.

Annoying interaction with that admin you had. I recently rejoined another forum. There was a 2 page thread where someone was listing reasons why those who disagreed with him were fallacious or off in some way. Not aimed at individuals, just the category. I responded point for point. Others had responded, some mainly with jabs, some with good points. The admins closed the thread before he could respond to me. In the closing post the admin called everyone who participated in the thread stupid because they responded to a troll. I started a thread in their admin criticizing this approach, quoting that mods post. Another admin closed my complaint thread and said 'I think you misquoted her'. I started a new thread and pointed out how strange it was that he didn't check to see if I misquoted her and also did not respond to my complaint. The first admin returned to the fray closing that thread and telling me she would ban me if I ever restarted a closed thread. From there I took it up in PMs, hoping that would tone things down - not that I had been harsh or insulting, but they were harsh and threatening. At no point could they see the possibility that admins calling people stupid might not be a good idea. They just kept justifying it, and attacking me, based on how badly other people behaved. I gave up and asked them to remove me from the forum. I still got emails telling me I had more responses from them. So I blocked the email. It's amazing how things can be run.

It's similar to someone who committed a property crime against me, but I can't do anything about it because I can't prove it to the cops when I know good n well who did it and if I take any action, then I'll be in trouble. Authority protects the criminals who've found ways around the authority or who have become friends with the authority.

Yeah, though not really a problem here, I don't think.

He's not here for discussion but to get kicks from throwing mud, so it makes sense in that light.

He can occasionally make a post presenting a position, but if I want a mind fuck I'd prefer to have get it from someone with more skill.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Annoying interaction with that admin you had. I recently rejoined another forum. There was a 2 page thread where someone was listing reasons why those who disagreed with him were fallacious or off in some way. Not aimed at individuals, just the category. I responded point for point. Others had responded, some mainly with jabs, some with good points. The admins closed the thread before he could respond to me. In the closing post the admin called everyone who participated in the thread stupid because they responded to a troll. I started a thread in their admin criticizing this approach, quoting that mods post. Another admin closed my complaint thread and said 'I think you misquoted her'. I started a new thread and pointed out how strange it was that he didn't check to see if I misquoted her and also did not respond to my complaint. The first admin returned to the fray closing that thread and telling me she would ban me if I ever restarted a closed thread. From there I took it up in PMs, hoping that would tone things down - not that I had been harsh or insulting, but they were harsh and threatening. At no point could they see the possibility that admins calling people stupid might not be a good idea. They just kept justifying it, and attacking me, based on how badly other people behaved. I gave up and asked them to remove me from the forum. I still got emails telling me I had more responses from them. So I blocked the email. It's amazing how things can be run.

Yes, you can't challenge or admonish authority. There are no appeals in a dictatorship since there's no one to appeal to. I think a dictatorship can work if you get lucky and get a good dictator, but many times the power reveals corruption.

I was talking to some guys on a physics forum and most were nice, but one longstanding member was unable to reply to me without making me the topic of debate in derogatory fashion. I kept telling him that wasn't necessary, but he kept insisting I be the topic. So I gathered all the ad hominems of the thread into one post so he could see what he's doing (btw an ad hominem is not necessarily an insult, but an argument directed "to the man". It's a change of subject or a red herring.)

You blah blahYou yada yadaYou can'tYou refuse toYou won't

I said "See?"

The guy was smart and I didn't want to piss him off, I just wanted him to stop making me feel stupid unnecessarily because I won't simply accept his authority instead of his explaining his assertion.

It was actually going quite well as he seemed remorseful about it, that is, until a mod popped up claiming that they encourage spirited debate and he's seen no violation. I said you see no problem with making me the topic? He disagreed and warned furthermore that my continued replying to him IS considered offtopic and a violation. Oh boy, wrong thing to do because I tore into him! He posted in MY thread instead of pm-ing me and then claimed that I am offtopic if I reply to him?!? I gave him a big piece of my mind and told him that whatever he intended to do about it would be forever unknown to me, then shook the dirt off my feet and left. It's a good illustration of an otherwise manageable situation getting escalated by the appearance of authority.

Well obviously there was no sense hanging around since ad homming was just sanctioned by authority and appeals were considered a violation for the sake of a righteous compulsion that I couldn't resonate with. So they lost a very speech-maximizing member, in my opinion, and have presumably been relegated to entertaining themselves. Forums are dying and they need me more than I need them since there are other places for me to go while not many people who are willing to forsake Twitter, FB, and YouTube to participate in specialized discussion forums.

I've never understood the anally retentive compulsion to obsessively adhere to topics anyway. Back in 2008 I watched a mod drive himself crazy locking threads, banning people, deleting posts, doing thread surgery and for what? Who reads those threads now? Who gives a shit about all that work? The AI bots??? People can't even read a paragraph; much less a long thread from 10 years ago. Btw I just got my newly redesigned phone bill in the mail... it looks like a Dr. Seuss coloring book. That speaks volumes of where society is heading. The next lifeform to read this will be silicon-based (Hello AI peeps )

Serendipper wrote:Yes, you can't challenge or admonish authority. There are no appeals in a dictatorship since there's no one to appeal to. I think a dictatorship can work if you get lucky and get a good dictator, but many times the power reveals corruption.

Carleas seems OK with challenges, so that's a positive.

It was actually going quite well as he seemed remorseful about it, that is, until a mod popped up claiming that they encourage spirited debate and he's seen no violation. I said you see no problem with making me the topic? He disagreed and warned furthermore that my continued replying to him IS considered offtopic and a violation. Oh boy, wrong thing to do because I tore into him! He posted in MY thread instead of pm-ing me and then claimed that I am offtopic if I reply to him?!? I gave him a big piece of my mind and told him that whatever he intended to do about it would be forever unknown to me, then shook the dirt off my feet and left. It's a good illustration of an otherwise manageable situation getting escalated by the appearance of authority.

Well obviously there was no sense hanging around since ad homming was just sanctioned by authority and appeals were considered a violation for the sake of a righteous compulsion that I couldn't resonate with. So they lost a very speech-maximizing member, in my opinion, and have presumably been relegated to entertaining themselves. Forums are dying and they need me more than I need them since there are other places for me to go while not many people who are willing to forsake Twitter, FB, and YouTube to participate in specialized discussion forums.

I think people are very back to the wall, at least in their emotions. It feels like the world is ending so they defend their lines very tightly. A mod who admits he or she has abused power or made a mistake may feel like if they admit it, they will deal with this all the time. Not that that's a justification, just an explanation. The mod should obviously have allowed you guys to work it out. If tough talk is allowed, well, that would go for you too.

And the thread itself is meaningful to me in that it exposes yet another example of the point that I do raise about "rules of behavior".

Consider:

Carleas could embrace one of three policies here...

1] might makes right. It's his forum and the rules are in sync with that which suits him.2] right makes might. He has determined that there is in fact an optimal set of rules and that the forum must abide by them.3] moderation, negotiation and compromise. He recognizes that different folks have different narratives/agendas regarding these things. He has come up with a set of rules/policies [subject to change] that come as close as he deems "the best of possible worlds" might be. Here and now.

Power [rules] wielded somewhere in the murky middle of that which I construe to be embedded in dasein and conflicting goods.

The purpose of the rules is not to "have rules" ... it's to have a well-functioning forum.

For some though rules do basically revolve around having them. The rules become crucial for distinguishing between "one of us" and "one of them". Indeed, there are some communities [religous or otherwise] where there are rules for practically everthing. And if you are "one of us" you know your place in the community. And that's because in communities of this sort there is almost always a place for everyone...providing that everyone does in fact strictly embody the rules.

Besides, what's that got to do with the conflicting narratives here regarding what particular rules would best bring about and sustain a well-functioning forum? The arguments [for some] seem to revolve around whether or not Carleas's understanding of "well-functioning" reflects the optimal frame of mind.

In other words, is there an optimal frame of mind re the three approaches I noted above.

phyllo wrote: If he wants a forum where people chat casually and exchange recipes, then one particular set of rules and enforcement will be better than another. If he wants a forum where people discuss philosophy, then another set of rules will be better. And discussing philosophy can mean many things ... academic, serious but casual, practical, etc ... each of which would be best served by specific rules and enforcement.

Okay, but what specific rules and enforcement per forum? Can the optimal proscriptions be pinned down?

That's always my focus. Sure, different folks will have different renditions of this. But then there are the ones who basically insist that if you don't share their own then you are wrong. If not a "retard" or a "moron".

Thus the extent to which, between the members and the administraters/owners, moderation, negotiation and compromise is even able to prevail.

phyllo wrote: The "one of three policies" is really a simplistic way of looking at the situation. The power and goals of the admin and the members are much more intertwined.

Indeed, but how would this even be possible if the owners created rules to suit only their own particular prejudices...or insisted that their rules did in fact reflect the optimal or the only rational frame of mind.

We're probably more or less on the same page here, with different narratives to explain it.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

The arguments [for some] seem to revolve around whether or not Carleas's understanding of "well-functioning" reflects the optimal frame of mind.

In other words, is there an optimal frame of mind re the three approaches I noted above.

Can the optimal proscriptions be pinned down?

Indeed, but how would this even be possible if the owners created rules to suit only their own particular prejudices...or insisted that their rules did in fact reflect the optimal or the only rational frame of mind.

Still, we do live in a world where, with respect to the rules being discussed and debated here -- or to any other set of rules -- there are in fact those who insist that perfection is within our reach.

Or, if we have to settle only for the "good", that too will still revolve around our own religious/philosophical/ideological/moral etc., prejudices.

Now, with respect to your own rendition of "good rules" here, what do you say to those who insist that their own rendition should prevail instead? Well, you can adopt the frame of mind that revolves around "your right from your side and I'm right from mind"; and then attempt to forge a set of rules that fall somewhere in the middle re the members and the moderators. Or you can insist that only your rules do in fact reflect the optimal narrative/agenda. Then you can leave and set up a new forum predicated entirely on those rules. Either because as, say, one of Nietzsche's uberman, your rules deserve to prevail, or because, as a philosopher-king, you really do know what the best rules are.

ILP is clearly somewhere in the middle here. And while it may not reflect the best of all possible worlds, does that even exist?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Still, we do live in a world where, with respect to the rules being discussed and debated here -- or to any other set of rules -- there are in fact those who insist that perfection is within our reach.

People believe all sorts of stuff.

Or, if we have to settle only for the "good", that too will still revolve around our own religious/philosophical/ideological/moral etc., prejudices.

A "bad" forum will dissolve as people leave, a "good" forum will maintain itself. A "good" philosophy forum will have some philosophical discussions, a "bad" philosophy forum will have little or none. So "good" and "bad" are not entirely based on prejudices.

Now, with respect to your own rendition of "good rules" here, what do you say to those who insist that their own rendition should prevail instead?

I say that they can try to implement those rules and I will not support them and I might actively resist them. Therefore, there will be a struggle to decide who prevails.

Well, you can adopt the frame of mind that revolves around "your right from your side and I'm right from mind"; and then attempt to forge a set of rules that fall somewhere in the middle re the members and the moderators.

No, I will adopt an attitude that "you think you are right but you are wrong". (But you knew that, right? )Rule changes can be proposed and my approach would be that there is a possibility of give and take on some rules, while other rules are not negotiable. Some rules could be implemented on a trial basis to see how they work in real life. I'm not entirely intransigent. But I'm not going to throw away some basic principles in order to reach an agreement.

Then you can leave and set up a new forum predicated entirely on those rules.

That's one possibility. I could challenge the rules and demonstrate their flaws. I could try to sabotage this forum. I could go to another forum. I could "pursue other interests". I have options.

ILP is clearly somewhere in the middle here. And while it may not reflect the best of all possible worlds, does that even exist?

But you have noticed a decline. You have mentioned it in several posts ("the kids"). A lot of posts can best be described as "preaching" from the soapbox. Members have left.

Serendipper wrote:Yes, you can't challenge or admonish authority. There are no appeals in a dictatorship since there's no one to appeal to. I think a dictatorship can work if you get lucky and get a good dictator, but many times the power reveals corruption.

Carleas seems OK with challenges, so that's a positive.

Yes Carleas is the exception and not the norm. I thought he was a regular member until this thread. That's the way I'd want it if I ran a show... because otherwise everyone would jump on me and start kissing my butt. I don't want to be admired or hated but just considered worthy of consideration.

Jerry Seinfeld said he hated drunks because they're always either telling you how much they love you or hate you.

Jerry: But in a way, I think I inadvertantly turned this guy into an alcoholic. I hate being around alcoholics because they're either telling you how much they love you or how much they hate you. And those are the two statements that scare me the most. But I think he's okay now because I have no idea how he feels about me. He's finally off the wagon.

I think people are very back to the wall, at least in their emotions. It feels like the world is ending so they defend their lines very tightly. A mod who admits he or she has abused power or made a mistake may feel like if they admit it, they will deal with this all the time. Not that that's a justification, just an explanation.

There is probably truth to that, but here is a case involving a private message. I signed up on a psychology board where a pm is automatically dispatched by the owner who is a Dr of psychiatry. Within the message he went to great lengths in relating to people who were presumed to be spammers until proven otherwise. Since he went to such lengths in empathy and since he is a Dr who invariably deals with crazy people all the time, lol, I decided it was safe to reply to the pm complaining that it's unethical to presume guilt. Yeah, he bit my head off. Empathy went out the window and he got defensive right off the bat then said he's "all ears" waiting for my recommendation for how to handle all the spam. I said "captcha". He didn't reply. It just goes to show that even the professionals in private are not immune to feeling defensive.

I remember once on the phone with customer service where I asked why it seems all the agents are so nice. She said "they send us to school." People have to be taught to talk to people and the customer is always right if you want to be in business. It's a hard skill to learn and I don't have it

Of course, some don't seem interested in running a business, but displaying their power for all to see which is evidenced by the exhibition of the banned:

At first glance you wouldn't think survivalists would need so much protection, being rough tough men n all, but after further consideration, building safe spaces is kinda what they're into.

And here is the ass-kissing I was on about earlier:

The Following 281 Users Say Thank You to ~kev~ For This Useful Post:

They always have a trail of minions congratulating their every move and that behavior would make me feel cheesy, so I wouldn't want anyone to know I'm the admin.

The mod should obviously have allowed you guys to work it out. If tough talk is allowed, well, that would go for you too.

Thanks for that. It's nice to know I'm not alone in my thinking. Yes, we would have worked it out if the mod hadn't tried to fix it. I did like the guy, but I think there might have been a language barrier on top of maybe some autism stuff or something. He was smart and really wanted to help me, but in a master/groveling-student kinda way.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but what specific rules and enforcement per forum? Can the optimal proscriptions be pinned down?

That's always my focus. Sure, different folks will have different renditions of this. But then there are the ones who basically insist that if you don't share their own then you are wrong. If not a "retard" or a "moron".

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:Thing is, we could argue about it for 5 hours using wall of text.Or we could try to use cartoons to prove it wrong in 5 minutes.

Sadly now we are back to the 5 hours method.Here's an example.On Christian boards they will argue about this topic in 5 hours, but common sense cartoons deflate it in 5 minutes. Here's an example.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0EEKfTnfvA

Okay, okay, I get it: More Kidstuff.

But my offer still stands.

You should seriously check out those cartoons; they're deep. Darkmatter2525 is a philosopher. I've been hooked on them ever since I read her post and I don't understand why he doesn't have a bigger following than merely the 622k on par with what Stefan Molyneux gets.

phyllo wrote:A "bad" forum will dissolve as people leave, a "good" forum will maintain itself. A "good" philosophy forum will have some philosophical discussions, a "bad" philosophy forum will have little or none. So "good" and "bad" are not entirely based on prejudices.

So if we say the "average" philosophy-person is 129, that may imply a range of 115 to 145 (only 16% of the population) who are able to understand philosophical concepts well enough to enter into discussion about them which leaves 84% of people categorized as "bad" for the forum because not only are they unable to participate, but also are too likely to defecate on the board then claim victory which may cause legitimate players to leave. The situation isn't too dissimilar from adults and children eating at separate tables and children needing more supervision than adults.

Helmuth Nyborg noted that countries with low ave iq can only be ruled by a dictator because the people aren't smart enough to understand what's necessary for a democracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQVPifbxldI That idea parallels the need for a shepherd over a herd of animals who aren't smart enough to follow unspoken rules and, of course, children need supervision. So the theory is that the smarter the herd on average, the less oversight they need and therefore the creation of a safe space invites those who function best within that dictatorial structure... it selects for it... and therefore selects against who you need to attract into order to call a philosophy forum "good".

My point to Iambig was that good and bad need not be considered as abstract ideas tied to " " (fill in the blank) prejudices. If people are in a forum doing nothing but discussion sports and/or exchanging recipes, then it's not a philosophy forum. Is it? And if it calls itself a philosophy forum, then it's a bad philosophy forum.

Is a particular type of forum good or bad? People are going to vote with their feet. There is the feedback.

According to this https://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estim ... ege-major/ the ave iq of philosophy majors is 129 and philosophy ranks 2nd only to physics. Once we're down to the 115s or so, we're into social sciences, agriculture, and art.

So if we say the "average" philosophy-person is 129, that may imply a range of 115 to 145 (only 16% of the population) who are able to understand philosophical concepts well enough to enter into discussion about them which leaves 84% of people categorized as "bad" for the forum because not only are they unable to participate, but also are too likely to defecate on the board then claim victory which may cause legitimate players to leave. The situation isn't too dissimilar from adults and children eating at separate tables and children needing more supervision than adults.

I'm not saying that a philosophy forum is only good if it attracts philosophy majors or "serious" philosophers. There can be many forums with various levels of discussion. Those who want to discuss philosophy on an academic level probably don't want to be in the same forum as those discussing it on a casual or practical level. And vice versa.

I personally don't want to be in a philosophy forum with philosophy majors.

Helmuth Nyborg noted that countries with low ave iq can only be ruled by a dictator because the people aren't smart enough to understand what's necessary for a democracy.

I guess that people who understand democracy are not smart enough to understand anarchy.

Yeah that's how Alan Watts reasoned it. When and if people get smart enough, they won't need any government as they will be self-governing. I'm not sure where he got that idea, but perhaps Aldous Huxley.

Democracy requires a vast set of rules.

Yes but children and herd animals do not set their own rules, but the rules are dictated by a governing body. When children become adults, they set their own rules and play a bigger part in determining society's rules. Remember the ave iq of society is only 100 or so.

Why have a constitution, rules for elections, rules for the representative assemblies, rules for political conduct, .... ?

I'm not saying have no rules, but only questioning who should determine and enforce the rules and how. We have a republic which is a democracy among elected individuals who are supposed to be smarter than the public on average, but because the public elects them, they often aren't.

Suppose you have a medical problem and you poll the general population for what to do as opposed to polling all doctors for a consensus. That's the difference in a democracy and a republic.

After all, if people can just get together and agree on ad hoc action then you don't need any of that stuff.

It boils down to what the group of people are capable of understanding.

That idea parallels the need for a shepherd over a herd of animals who aren't smart enough to follow unspoken rules and, of course, children need supervision.

Ah, the "unspoken rules" which everyone knows and follows, if they are smart enough. What if they are so smart that they understand that they need not follow the "unspoken rules"?

My point to Iambig was that good and bad need not be considered as abstract ideas tied to " " (fill in the blank) prejudices.

I'm not sure what you mean by "abstract".

If people are in a forum doing nothing but discussion sports and/or exchanging recipes, then it's not a philosophy forum. Is it? And if it calls itself a philosophy forum, then it's a bad philosophy forum.

That seems true.

Is a particular type of forum good or bad? People are going to vote with their feet. There is the feedback.

But voting with feet doesn't seem a good litmus test for determining good or bad because argumentum ad populum can't work per the iq bell curve. If most" folks leave, that is good. If "most" folks stay, then smarter people leave and that is bad. Therefore setting up conditions that attract the herd is bad for a philosophy forum.

According to this https://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estim ... ege-major/ the ave iq of philosophy majors is 129 and philosophy ranks 2nd only to physics. Once we're down to the 115s or so, we're into social sciences, agriculture, and art.

So if we say the "average" philosophy-person is 129, that may imply a range of 115 to 145 (only 16% of the population) who are able to understand philosophical concepts well enough to enter into discussion about them which leaves 84% of people categorized as "bad" for the forum because not only are they unable to participate, but also are too likely to defecate on the board then claim victory which may cause legitimate players to leave. The situation isn't too dissimilar from adults and children eating at separate tables and children needing more supervision than adults.

I'm not saying that a philosophy forum is only good if it attracts philosophy majors or "serious" philosophers. There can be many forums with various levels of discussion. Those who want to discuss philosophy on an academic level probably don't want to be in the same forum as those discussing it on a casual or practical level. And vice versa.

I personally don't want to be in a philosophy forum with philosophy majors.

Of course, I see your point, but I was just trying to boil it down for easy illustration. No matter how you slice it though, not everyone will fit in and trying to make everyone fit in will only result in losing those required to make it good.

Iambig gets so wrapped in dasein, details and complications that good and bad become completely abstract and detached from anything concrete. I'm trying to bring it back to something measurable ... function, participation and meeting the basic definitions of philosophy and forum.

But voting with feet doesn't seem a good litmus test for determining good or bad because argumentum ad populum can't work per the iq bell curve. Ifmost" folks leave, that is good. If "most" folks stay, then smarter people leave and that is bad. Therefore setting up conditions that attract the herd is bad for a philosophy forum.

Let me get this straight ...

Forum members are smart enough to set forum rules and decide who should be shamed and shunned. But they are too dumb to understand philosophy.

Also the smart ones leave and the dumb ones stay, so neither an empty inactive forum nor a large( let's not quibble about the definition of large for now) active one indicate the "goodness" of a forum.

Iambig gets so wrapped in dasein, details and complications that good and bad become completely abstract and detached from anything concrete. I'm trying to bring it back to something measurable ... function, participation and meeting the basic definitions of philosophy and forum.

Oh I see.

But voting with feet doesn't seem a good litmus test for determining good or bad because argumentum ad populum can't work per the iq bell curve. Ifmost" folks leave, that is good. If "most" folks stay, then smarter people leave and that is bad. Therefore setting up conditions that attract the herd is bad for a philosophy forum.

Let me get this straight ...

Forum members are smart enough to set forum rules and decide who should be shamed and shunned. But they are too dumb to understand philosophy.

No if they are smart enough to understand philosophy, then they are smart enough to set and enforce rules. But if they don't have the power to set and enforce their own rules, then a safe space has been created that favors the population of people who may not be able to understand philosophical concepts. It's not a necessity, but authority favors the blind-followers and because they have such numbers on their side, the truly philosophical may be pushed to the side.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that created them." - Einstein

So, the pioneers will be the outlaws who think outside the box and don't blindly follow the rules.

Reminds me of Euler being characterized as a mathematical outlaw: (FWD to 3:45 and then 6:30)

The point is the imposition of rules defines a box in which people are not allowed out of and that doesn't favor out-of-the-box thinkers.

Also the smart ones leave and the dumb ones stay, so neither an empty inactive forum nor a large( let's not quibble about the definition of large for now) active one indicate the "goodness" of a forum.

"Goodness" isn't determined by population, but on content. Of course, a higher population could be better so long as it doesn't negatively affect the content, but it just isn't likely to happen. Variety has merits as well and we should strive to be diverse in our membership, but we can't mandate it.

No if they are smart enough to understand philosophy, then they are smart enough to set and enforce rules. But if they don't have the power to set and enforce their own rules, then a safe space has been created that favors the population of people who may not be able to understand philosophical concepts. It's not a necessity, but authority favors the blind-followers and because they have such numbers on their side, the truly philosophical may be pushed to the side.

There are two cases here :- a forum where the rules are set by "the community"- a forum where the rules are set by "an authority"

But in both cases, the members who "walk in" are the same average or slightly above average general population. Since there are no IQ tests or other test of ability, they will mostly be "not smart enough to understand philosophy".

Therefore, it seems that they will not be smart enough to set and enforce the rules - the rules and enforcement will be dumb.

The point is the imposition of rules defines a box in which people are not allowed out of and that doesn't favor out-of-the-box thinkers.

That depends on the rules. A rule against calling people "morons" does not appear to be particularly limiting. On the other hand, a community of shamers could be very limiting or not - depends on the community.

"Goodness" isn't determined by population, but on content. Of course, a higher population could be better so long as it doesn't negatively affect the content, but it just isn't likely to happen. Variety has merits as well and we should strive to be diverse in our membership, but we can't mandate it.

That's saying that people can't determine "goodness" by their choices. A car model which sells well is not necessarily "good". A beer that people repeatedly consume is not "good" (or is it).

So what are people doing when they make choices?

One that inspires deep insight.

Okay, you have a standard of what is a "good philosophy forum" and you will leave if the forum doesn't meet that standard. You will also vote with your feet. Right?

Forum members are smart enough to set forum rules and decide who should be shamed and shunned. But they are too dumb to understand philosophy.

For me intelligence is not the issue for the shaming and shunning issue. Here we are in the internet with lots of options. If the community here, in this forum, shames and shuns things in ways that I consider stupid, this is not where I belong. Maybe they are stupid, maybe they simply do not understand what leads to good discussions, maybe they are actually smarter than me and correct. Regardless of the reasons for their community norms, their norms guide me. In the process of being shamed - where I can discuss their opinion with them - I may learn and change or they may learn and change or both or neither. But if we reach a point where there is a poor fit, it does not matter if they are right or I am right.

Here in ILP this is especially true, since Carleas is very hands off. I think this all happens anyway. People come and stay for a while and get frustrated with X and leave. Community norms piss people off or feel like opportunities or feel fair or unfair, etc. and this affects participation, who stays and who leaves. When I say it happens anyway, I mean that norms drive people away, but the norms are not made visible and defended and critiqued. They just bother people who leave and I would guess for me, some of those people are people who can have more nuanced discussions and they are right to leave.

I think one problem, here, is that people who are smart about philosophy get fed up, since many participants do not know how to engage the ideas of other people. My hope would be that by encouraging shaming and shunning, this would shift community norms. It might also, as a different solution, create a couple of communities here. Some people would, via shunning, not see anymore, many of the posts made by people who cannot interact with ideas. The people who want to just throw out opinions or twitter philosophical assertions from cellphones will continue to do this, but less at the expense of people who would like to do something more nuanced. It may not work, but I think it is worth a try. Social groups and professional groups often manage all these non-verbally, both the shaming and shunning. YOu just find yourself alone on coffee breaks or not invited onto project teams, etc. I think that is actually not a good thing-that it is handled non-verbally- or at least a limited thing, since people have less chance to adjust to community norms, the norms are not criticized openly, and those who have these norms never have to defend them. They might find they were embarrassed, for example.

What exactly would be a "good" philosophy forum?

For me it would be exploratory and with intelligent posting, and also not so focused on what team one is on - atheist vs. theist, right vs. left, etc. I suppose a place where when someone makes a point one cannot, now, counter, people admit it - rather than focusing on some other point they think they can counter and pretending that troublesome point was never made. That's a rather specific issue, but an important one for me.

And this is a perfect example of what I am categorizing, polemically, as shaming...

Phyllo (to Prismatic)I'm critiquing your poor arguments, lack of evidence and what appears to be a clear bias.

If that's a problem for you then maybe a philosophy forum is not the proper place for you

Note that it is ad hom - and I am not being critical when I say that - in the sense of being aimed at the person. Now he 'asked' for your motives, and since your motives relate to his behavior, to answer honestly you had to go ad hom.

You put out your sense of what expectations one can have in a philosophy forum for normal behavior.

You might never decide to shun - put him on 'foe' as it is called in this forum or less formally ignore him. You seem to have found iambiguous problematic for a long, long time, but you still engage him. That's your style.

Serendipity and I are suggesting that shunning after shaming might also be useful. And when I say 'after', I men when it seems like the shaming leads to no significant change.

It may seem off to refer to what you did as shaming, but I think if it is effective - iow if Prismatic really considers that what you are saying might be true or to some degree true, he will feel shame. And if he were to learn from it, shame would be part of the transition, as he learned to improve as a discussion partner. And I think his shame will be apparant in the way he responds defensively to your post. Hopefully he will prove me wrong, but in that case, he will have experienced some shame about they way he has been behaving. But we could call it something else. 'Pointing out patterns of behavior that make you a poor discussion partner' or whatever. We could call shunning 'no longer engaging with people who stubbornly repeat those kinds of patterns' or 'not feeding the subtle trolls' or whatever.

Whatever we call it, I think the process is a useful one if we want the forum to have what are better discussions for me.

Still, we do live in a world where, with respect to the rules being discussed and debated here -- or to any other set of rules -- there are in fact those who insist that perfection is within our reach.

People believe all sorts of stuff.

Sure, we can reduce it all down to that. But the actual rules in any community [like this one] are still going to revolve around one or another set of proscriptions. Can these be detemined objectively in a wholly rational manner?

And, from my frame of mind, the answer one gives to that question can make all the difference in the world regarding the fate of that community.

In particular if an objectivist comes to wield the power.

Or, if we have to settle only for the "good", that too will still revolve around our own religious/philosophical/ideological/moral etc., prejudices.

phyllo wrote: A "bad" forum will dissolve as people leave, a "good" forum will maintain itself. A "good" philosophy forum will have some philosophical discussions, a "bad" philosophy forum will have little or none. So "good" and "bad" are not entirely based on prejudices.

True, but if one's prejudice regarding rules revolves entirely around either might makes right or right makes might, "good" and "bad" become considerably more clear cut. And here it is being "one of us" or "one of them" that makes all the difference in the world.

It is only in a "moderation, negotiation and compromise" world that one can realistically "struggle to decide who prevails".

And that's all about politics. And that's all about democracy. And that all about some level of respect between the governors and the governed.

Of course one might also choose to be doctrinaire regarding the rules that are "non-negotiable" as well. Those that become embedded instead in "basic principles".

Like these can be ascertained...axiomatically? Like there are objective "flaws" that all rational men and women are obligated to concur regarding.

ILP is clearly somewhere in the middle here. And while it may not reflect the best of all possible worlds, does that even exist?

phyllo wrote: But you have noticed a decline. You have mentioned it in several posts ("the kids"). A lot of posts can best be described as "preaching" from the soapbox. Members have left.

Indeed. Folks like faust and moreno and von rivers [those I had had exchanges with] have all basically skedaddled over the years. And the Kids are clearly a factor here.

Or maybe [ironically] it revolves in part around folks like me. Those who are ever intent on exposing what they construe to be the profound limitations of "serious philosophy" in the is/ought world.

How ought one to live? Well, suppose philosophy really is essentially impotent here?

Would you abandon philosophy if you thought that?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

No if they are smart enough to understand philosophy, then they are smart enough to set and enforce rules. But if they don't have the power to set and enforce their own rules, then a safe space has been created that favors the population of people who may not be able to understand philosophical concepts. It's not a necessity, but authority favors the blind-followers and because they have such numbers on their side, the truly philosophical may be pushed to the side.

There are two cases here :- a forum where the rules are set by "the community"- a forum where the rules are set by "an authority"

But in both cases, the members who "walk in" are the same average or slightly above average general population. Since there are no IQ tests or other test of ability, they will mostly be "not smart enough to understand philosophy".

Therefore, it seems that they will not be smart enough to set and enforce the rules - the rules and enforcement will be dumb.

It's not as cut n dry as that. A forum that favors the mundane will select for that over time. For instance, I'm not sure what you consider me, but I'd never join the survivalist board because there are too many rules and the admin seems a jerk, but people who like that environment climb right on his ass and start kissing. So because admin imposes his will, he dictates evolution. Whether or not there exists any survivalists is a matter of opinion, but it's highly unlikely there are many free thinkers or a collective iq surpassing average as a matter of fact.

MGTOW is a board filled with submissives since they're compelled at the point of a gun to follow an order to introduce themselves or die as soon as they arrive to be showcased on the trophy wall. Quality of posts has nothing to do with their existence; only demonstration of servility. So men who tired of kissing the ass of women can always decide to go kiss that of a man at Men Grovelling To Overbearing Wannabes.

Boards transform over time into a collection of members who had their existence favored while shunning those who don't fit and it's that which degenerates the variety, creativity, novel and free thinking that contributes to the quality of content that either discourages or encourages new members to join. So there are no iq tests required at the door for entry since birds of a feather naturally flock together.

Evolution takes a long time and it's not like you could turn off the rules and have a flock of smart folks descend suddenly or, conversely, add more rules and suddenly be overrun by a mob of bootlickers.

I wish I could find that study that found animals raised in small cages developed inferior to animals that had more control over their environment since that's essentially what I'm on about. The New Zealand no-rules school also mirrored that.

The point is the imposition of rules defines a box in which people are not allowed out of and that doesn't favor out-of-the-box thinkers.

That depends on the rules. A rule against calling people "morons" does not appear to be particularly limiting.

Except people get around that rule. It favors the criminals because they can get away with underhanded shenanigans while people, well like me, have to walk on eggshells because I don't know where the line is if I retaliate, so I'd be likely to leave since I'm hogtied in defending myself and the mods won't do anything to stop me from being insulted. If there were no rules, then I could defend myself without worry and maybe the other guy would leave.

"Goodness" isn't determined by population, but on content. Of course, a higher population could be better so long as it doesn't negatively affect the content, but it just isn't likely to happen. Variety has merits as well and we should strive to be diverse in our membership, but we can't mandate it.

That's saying that people can't determine "goodness" by their choices. A car model which sells well is not necessarily "good".

That's exactly right and I hate that I can't find a good 1950s style metal garden hose nozzle at walmart because they just don't sell as well as the grandiose plastic contraptions that leak, break, and generally suck. Consumers are stupid and reflect the iq bell curve. I complain ALL the time about that. It's like my motto that if you ever find a product you like, you had better stock up before they "improve" it to pander to the dummies.

A beer that people repeatedly consume is not "good" (or is it).

Bud light sucks, but everyone drinks it to be part of an image or something. It's the #1 selling beer by far https://www.statista.com/statistics/188 ... ed-states/ Of course, the fact that I think it sucks is subjective, but I also don't know any hardcore alcoholics who drink it or even like it nor do I know any connoisseurs who have anything good to say about it; therefore I conclude it sucks and people must be drinking it for an image they resonate with. https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/bud-light/474/

So what are people doing when they make choices?

I used to take surveys where they'd ask "which label makes you more likely to identify with the product" and the like. People buy things because they feel "trendy" or "wholesome" or whatever imagine they fancy.

One that inspires deep insight.

Okay, you have a standard of what is a "good philosophy forum" and you will leave if the forum doesn't meet that standard. You will also vote with your feet. Right?

Yeah or I could just get busy and accidentally vote with my feet. But I've seen some changes since I've been here: people call each other names less and seem to be improving their content. I think people want to be better, but need to know what "better" is. The seed has been planted simply because we started talking about it. No great acumen is responsible; just someone had the balls to challenge authority and he wasn't crucified.

iambiguous wrote:But the actual rules in any community are still going to revolve around one or another set of proscriptions. Can these be determined objectively in a wholly rational manner?

I went to a meeting of geneticists not so long ago where they gathered in a group of philosophers and theologians and said, "Now look here; we need help! We now are on the verge of figuring out how to breed any kind of human character we would want to have. We can give you saints, philosophers, scientists, great politicians,,, anything you want; just tell us what kind of human beings ought we to breed."

So I said how will those of us who are genetically unregenerate make up our minds what genetically generated people might be? Because I'm afraid very much that our selection of virtues and may not work. It may be like, for example, this new kind of high-yield grain which is made and which is becoming ecologically destructive. When we interfere with the processes of nature and breed 'efficient plants' and 'efficient animals', there's always some way in which we have to pay for it and I can well-see that eugenically produced human beings might be dreadful; we could have a plague of virtuous people!

FWD to 18:30

Then he talks in other lectures about the atrocities caused by righteous crusades. Like the Vietnam war, which was on at the time, where he said it would be one thing to greedily capture all the beautiful oriental girls and bring them home for ourselves, but instead we've embarked on a righteous crusade in fighting some ideology called communism and that's far more destructive than good old fashioned rape n pillage.

Then he said of communism, "I wouldn't think you'd need to fight it... it would just fall apart" and he was right. He described communism as one giant corporation that's terribly inefficient and it finally collapsed under its own weight.

Really, the only true good and bad is in thinking there is a good and bad. In order to have the good, you must have the bad and to have a population in heaven requires the damnation of others and so the whole ideology is a root of evil, that is, if you consider atrocity a bad thing.

I think it was Jordan Peterson or one of those guys Stefan typically has on who said "If you think you'd be a benevolent dictator, then that is indication that you wouldn't."